(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단16313

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단16313

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and its judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

① From October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on February 1, 2014, to operate a vegecop from February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015, while serving as the head of an agricultural product team in the vegecopian located in the vegetable-gu, Daegu-gu, U.S. C (hereinafter “vegecop”).

② On March 31, 2014, the Defendant: (a) forced the Plaintiff to have an adverse impact on the entire store by entering a claim against the Plaintiff on the product from the customer; (b) forced the Plaintiff to operate the catcop in its entirety; (c) without any choice, the Plaintiff was forced to have the catcop in its own possession; (d) KRW 20 million for the account payable to the customer; (e) KRW 3 million for two months; (e) KRW 2 million for the deposit; (e) the preparation and distribution of the former part; (g) the cost of manufacturing the catcop; (e) KRW 10 million for the damages incurred by sales; (g) KRW 8 million for the sales proceeds of the 7-day sales proceeds of the catcop; and (g) KRW 50 million for the remaining ten-month period; and (g) KRW 96 million for the remaining catcop.

③ The Plaintiff, after hearing the statement from the Defendant that the Defendant would retire from a party, demanded the Defendant to continue the operation of the party headquarters or at least one month to adjust the party headquarters, but the Defendant refused such demand. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages arising from the lease contract cancellation due to nonperformance, unjust coercion, or tort.

Therefore, this paper examines whether there was a breach of contract or a default of obligation by the defendant, and whether there was an unjust coercion or a tort.

B. According to the overall purport of the testimony and evidence Nos. 14 and 17 of the witnesses E and F, the following facts are revealed.

① On March 31, 2014, the Defendant is liable for the defective management of the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나6017

-대구지방법원 2017.06.16 2016가단37133

-춘천지방법원 2015.08.11 2014가단7059

-대구지방법원 2017.04.05 2016가단42593

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.05.20 2014가단6000